New York Times Keeps Their Intentions Clear - Update

The "intentions" of the New York Times is to distort current affairs in order to drive a narrative that fits their agenda. Be that by, promoting left-wing ideology, selling papers (internet hits), or just enjoying their own obsessive crusade against Governor Palin. So, why would the reaction to the governor's speech in Santa Barbara for the Reagan 100 event, be any different? It wasn't.

Right after the speech, they posted an article written by Jeff Zeleny called, "Palin Keeps Position Clear and Intentions Vague." He writes:

For Ms. Palin, a speech on Friday evening to a conservative group that gathered to pay tribute to President Reagan offered an opportunity to connect herself to the most iconic figure of the Republican Party. Yet she did not use the appearance — one of the highest-profile Republican platforms in months — to move beyond familiar criticism or attempt to prescribe a new or specific remedy for what she sees as missteps in the Obama administration.

Mr. Zeleny either didn't listen to the speech, or he has a problem identifying anything outside of a new government program as a "specific remedy." Governor Palin offered many remedies to ills that face our nation. She mentioned domestic energy production, for one. She mentioned cutting corporate tax rates. She also talked about cutting government "back down to size," and cutting overall spending. She discussed reforming entitlement programs, reducing over-burdensome regulations, and ending the cronyism that is corrupting our system. Perhaps Mr. Zeleny should listen to the speech again, or learn that not every solution comes by way of more bureaucracy.

Later in the article, he writes:

Presidential contenders, regardless of their celebrity, are put through a gauntlet of rituals that require a delicate air of patience as they deal with their admirers. Prospective candidates, particularly if they are courting supporters, routinely sit through dinners and mingle with guests. But in her case, Ms. Palin entered the room only for her speech and left immediately after.

The appearance here was marked by tight security and rigid rules, with guests admonished to stay in their seats when she arrived. (“We’d all like to jump up and give her a high-five, but please stay at your tables,” Kate Obenshain, vice president of the foundation, announced from the dais. “There will be no book signings or autographs.”)

He is misleading his readers entirely. First of all, Kate Obenshain says in this clip that Governor Palin agreed to do a photo line. Rebecca Mansour also weighed in via Twitter:

Apparently the NYT missed it that Gov. Palin posed with every dinner attendee after her speech

And

Palin spent over an hour posing with all the dinner attendees. NYT should have known that. Kate Obenshain announced it after Palin's speech.

These events were recorded, people were there, evidence exists, so the New York Times is obligated to correct their story. As of now, (4:44 a.m. PST) it is false.

This article is riddled with spin and bias. There was the unnecessary mid-motion photo they posted at the bottom of the page, and the interview with the one guy in the crowd who isn't (yet) donating to SarahPAC. The media isn't interested in reporting facts anymore, they are more concerned with painting narratives. They seem to be even more vindictive if they don't get a scoop. Mr. Zeleny made it known throughout his article that Governor Palin didn't announce any big news about her future.

The bottom-line however, is that the article contains blatantly false information. The New York Times has been called out about it, and now they have an obligation to correct the record. We'll be waiting right here.

Update: I’m not sure why I didn’t put make the connection early this morning, but the photo that irritated me that the Times placed at the end of the article has a caption that reads, “Ms. Palin greeted guests after her speech.” They sort of destroy the premise that she “left immediately after” the speech with that alone, do they not?

It’s now 11:55 a.m. PST and the story has still not been corrected.

Mediaite Proves Governor Palin's Point

Glynnis MacNicol from Mediaite posted a piece today called, "Sarah Palin: The ‘Lamestream’ Media Is Hurting Our Troops." The article is a hostile effort to deflect attention from what Governor Palin actually said. She never said that the "media is hurting our troops," although I do believe she called the press 'lame.' She said:

"We've got to hold the press accountable when you know they're making things up and telling untruths. We've got to do this together.

By the way, I am the biggest proponent of freedom of the press in this country. Our young men and women in uniform willing to fight and die for our constitutional rights including that right to a free press. It's why I am hot on this lamestream media issue. It's why I am adamant that they tell the truth. How dare anyone disrespect our troop’s sacrifice by claiming the right to print and to say anything without a corresponding responsibility to truth."

The media's role is supposed to be one that tells the populace the who, what, when, where, and why's of any given story. However, we have seen the media stop doing that and instead they use their platform to push an agenda and distort the truth. What Governor Palin is clearly saying, is that the media has a huge responsibility to uphold the ethics of their trade. These people would not be able to practice their professions without the sacrifices of the people who serve our country in the military. The media has a big responsibility and they owe every ability they have to freely communicate to our troops. They trash that responsibility every time they overlook their ethics and instead try to push that agenda.

Governor Palin gave a great speech Friday night in Iowa. You can see it in it's entirety here. You knew the media would be upset by her calling them out. This article is a clear display of their displeasure, and by referring to her as "Frankenstein" at the end, they merely prove her point.

Margaret Carlson, a Showcase of Delusion

Perpetual PDS victim, Margaret Carlson has written another anti-Palin rant titled, "Watch Your Back, Sarah." Carlson repeats the old trick of trying to discuss current events while meshing them together with her own warped theories regarding Governor Palin. She has a long history of doing this, so just expect more from Margaret in the near future considering she cannot get anyone to read her work unless the words "Sarah" or "Palin" are in the headline.

In this edition, Carlson creates (in her own mind) a scenario in which Governor Palin avoided attending this year's Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit because she was afraid of being upstaged by Christine O'Donnell, who did attend the venue. She writes:

I think it’s wise that Palin is otherwise occupied. Better not to be upstaged by the new It Girl on the block. Sure, Palin created the monster now threatening to steal her thunder by endorsing the unknown O’Donnell four days before Tuesday’s primary. She stunned everyone by beating former Congressman and Governor Mike Castle for the chance to run for former Senator Joe Biden's seat.

Often we don't realize when we are cooperating in our own demise, a classic tale, memorialized in All About Eve. Bette Davis's Margo Channing, the venerable star of Broadway, lets the adoring Eve Harrington, the fresher, prettier version of herself, into her life only to find her career eclipsed by the outwardly docile ingénue.

Why would Palin want an obvious knockoff hawking her wares on the shores of the Delaware? She can tolerate Mamma Grizzlies who aren't poaching her act, like Sharron Angle and Rep. Michele Bachmann. They acknowledge she's the Big Mamma. But look at O'Donnell. She used to be a dead ringer for Elaine on Seinfeld until this election. Now, she’s a mini-me of the queen of the tundra

I hope whatever Margaret Carlson smokes, is illegal. She thought it was "wise" that Governor Palin was "otherwise occupied?" Does she mean to tell us all that Governor Palin was merely 'occupying' herself by headlining a major speech, that received national headlines, in the very important state of Iowa, in the fear that Christine O'Donnell would outshine her? This shows a complete detachment from reality by Carlson.

First, let me apply some simple math to deconstruct the loony logic that makes up Margaret Carlson's contemptuous tripe. It was announced in late August that Governor Palin would be the key speaker at this year's Ronald Reagan Dinner, held by Iowa Republicans. Governor Palin did not endorse Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware GOP Primary race until September ninth. A fact Carlson points out herself in the above paragraph.

It's not as though Governor Palin saw the attention Christine O'Donnell was receiving after her victory last week, and shied away from an event out of some sort of jealousy knowing O'Donnell would be at that event. Who is she trying to kid? In what world do people above the age of 18 act like that? Perhaps the left is filled with childish attention seekers, but the same does not go for Governor Palin. It is a ridiculous notion on it's face.

Does Margaret Carlson really believe Governor Palin would avoid one event in this vein, only to go to the other and reference O'Donnell's victory many times? Even after the governor's speech had concluded, she told reporters that she wanted to go to Delaware to "knock on doors" for O'Donnell. Yeah, those aren't so much the actions of a jealous person.

Carlson goes on to trash Christine O'Donnell using recycled Mike Castle/Karl Rove talking points. She also slammed O'Donnell for the religious views she espoused on television over fifteen years ago. Margaret doesn't mention that O'Donnell stated last Thursday during a televised debate that her views have "matured" since then. Omission being a key element for any left-wing agenda pushing columnist, I suppose.

Carlson also uses any opportunity in this piece to push lies about Governor Palin, regardless of how widely publicized the truth has been. For instance, repeating the meme that Governor Palin resigned for profit. Take a number Margaret, there is no shortage of people trying to swing that narrative. Those of us who were paying attention at the time know it's rubbish because we know the reasons why the governor resigned. We watched as she was persecuted financially, her state business halted, and her voice silenced by her political opponents. Too complex to explain quickly, which is why people like Carlson say what they say. Their lie is easy to tell. Especially since Governor Palin didn't decided to sit down and shut up. She is still out there fighting, making herself a target for the left. If she decides to make some money in the process, her detractors try to beat her over the head with this meme. It's another way they still try to silence her.

For added class, Carlson throws Governor Palin's family into the mix by writing this line in her article.

There will not be multiple People covers featuring her daughter and an on-again, off-again putative fiancé, Levi Johnston, no revelations that Palin turned a blind eye to Levi sleeping with Bristol while she holed up in the bedroom watching decorating shows."

Another lie Carlson has told before, which has been debunked by Governor Palin many times as far back as April, 2009. I gather Levi Johnston is Carlson's source for this fabrication. He has since said he was lying about that and other things. Then he said he was lying about that. Great source you've got there Margaret!

Never shying away from stuffing as many false narratives about Governor Palin as she can into one piece, Carlson throws the bunk argument that she didn't know who she had endorsed in New Hampshire in there for good measure.

Thursday night, on the Bill O'Reilly show, she couldn't remember who she'd endorsed in the New Hampshire race—even though her choice had won a nail-biter in the Granite State 24 hours earlier (no more calls; it is Kelly Ayotte, former attorney general). Palin stared blankly for what seemed an eternity.

Sheya addressed this the other day. I'm not going to rehash all of that, but I will say that it is not Governor Palin's job to call out Bill O'Reilly on his own show when he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about. It was the job of the producer who he was initially talking to in his earpiece and his own responsibility to know who Governor Palin had endorsed and who had actually won that particular election, if he wanted to bring up the topic at all.

It is curious to me as a woman why someone who considers herself a "feminist" would obsess over the appearance of other powerful women. Carlson spends a great deal of time in her article talking about the looks, clothes, hair, and glasses of both Governor Palin and Christine O'Donnell. I sincerely doubt that Carlson would spend any time talking about those things had her piece been about men. Then again, I doubt she ever would have written this piece it all, had both of these women been men instead.

Add this submission from Carlson into a long line of garbage from the likes of her and other so-called 'feminist' writers who go out of their way to tear down other woman who have achieved far more than they ever will. Especially when those other woman have different opinions about issues such as abortion and the role of government. I think these issues are the key factors why they attack Conservative women they way they do. In a piece like this one, with outright lies and awkward immature analysis, I can only hope Margaret Carlson starts to spend the same amount of time analyzing herself. Maybe she will realize how foolish her writing is.